Gabor, Thanks for your reply. You're right, I did mean "subroutine redefined".
Even though it wouldn't be perfect, I do think it would be better if Padre did something like "perl -c -e "use Module.pm"' to syntax check .pm files. It would reduce some superfluous warnings and make it closer to accurate. After all, the point of the syntax checker is to tell you if your scripts and modules have syntax errors, not to display "subroutine redefined" warnings for things that are defined only once. If the scripts and modules run without syntax errors or warnings, then why should Padre show errors? It's just distracting and greatly reduces the value of syntax checking. Of course, this is really perhaps a problem with perl -c and not with Padre, but if Padre can make developers' lives easier then it should do so. As to your suggestion that it is bad design to have circular "use" lines -- that is really beside the point. In some cases it is perfectly valid that module A needs to use module B, and vice versa, and it does not necessarily mean that things evolved without a design. There are ways around it of course, but if it isn't a syntax error when running, it ideally shouldn't be reported as a syntax error by the Padre IDE. So it is a minor thing in the scheme of things, but it would be easy enough for Padre to detect .pm files and handle syntax checking slightly differently for them, so in my opinion it would be worth doing. Regards, Rob > I guess you meant "Subroutine redefined" there as it says in the > PerlMonks post. Let us know if not. > > I see the discussion there and I don't think Padre could provide > anything else than what was recommended in that post. Well, Padre > could be taught to hide specific warnings for specific files but I > don't think it supports this currently. > > OTOH I am surprised no one on Perl Monks started to tell you that > circular loading of modules is not good. > It points to some bad design of the code. Actually such circular > loading comes up when the code just evolved without specific design. > So maybe instead of hiding this warning a better approach would be to > ensure you have no circular loads in your code. > > It would also make it easier to test it. > > regards > Gabor _______________________________________________ Padre-dev mailing list Padre-dev@perlide.org http://mail.perlide.org/mailman/listinfo/padre-dev
